COLEMAN v. KELLAMS

Filing 10

ORDER SCREENING THE COMPLAINT - Mr. Coleman's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim shall proceed against Officer Kellams in her individual capacity. All other claims are dismissed. This summary includes all viable claims identified by the Cour t. If Mr. Coleman believes the complaint includes additional viable claims, he has through January 28, 2022, to identify those claims. The clerk is directed to issue process to defendant S. Kellams. Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 1/10/2022.(KAA)

Case 2:21-cv-00375-JPH-MJD Document 10 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
ROBERT D. COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
S. KELLAMS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:21-cv-00375-JPH-MJD

ORDER SCREENING THE COMPLAINT
Robert Coleman is a prisoner at Westville Correctional Facility. Mr. Coleman is suing
Officer S. Kellams for an alleged episode of excessive force at Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility. Because Mr. Coleman is a prisoner, the Court must screen the complaint before directing
service on the defendant.
I. SCREENING STANDARD
The Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(c). The Court applies the same standard for a
motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714,
720 (7th Cir. 2017). The complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se complaints
are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted).

Case 2:21-cv-00375-JPH-MJD Document 10 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28

II. THE COMPLAINT
On May 1, 2021, Mr. Coleman was locked inside his cell in a solitary confinement unit at
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. The complaint alleges that Officer Kellams reached through
Mr. Coleman's open cuff-port and "acted with malicious intent by emptying out a whole can of
chemical agent on Mr. Coleman." Officer Kellams sprayed Mr. Coleman's genital area with the
chemical agent while he was partially nude and behaving in a non-threatening manner.
Mr. Coleman seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
III. DISCUSSION
Mr. Coleman's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim shall proceed against Officer
Kellams in her individual capacity. All other claims are dismissed. This summary includes all
viable claims identified by the Court. If Mr. Coleman believes the complaint includes
additional viable claims, he has through January 28, 2022, to identify those claims.
The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant
S. Kellams in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint, dkt. [1],
applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver
of service of Summons), and this Order.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 1/10/2022

2

Case 2:21-cv-00375-JPH-MJD Document 10 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 29

Distribution:
ROBERT D. COLEMAN
179553
WESTVILLE - CF
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5501 South 1100 West
WESTVILLE, IN 46391
Electronic Service to the following IDOC defendant at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility:
Officer S. Kellams

3